Stephen Wood on Transformational Justification being Foreshadowed by the Divine Presence in the Tabernacle and the Temple

Writing in defence of infused righteousness, not merely imputed, Catholic apologist Stephen Wood discussed how there is a foreshadowing of such in the divine presence in the temple and tabernacle during the Old Testament:

 

The Holy of Holies was the special dwelling place of the infinite, awesome, all-powerful Yahweh, the covenant God of Israel. In the inner sanctum, the Creator of the universe would come to dwell and manifest his presence on earth. It was the distinguishing mark of the Israelites that the God of heaven would dwell in their midst.

 

The divine presence indwelling the Holy of Holies was an anticipation of a greater glory to come in the New Covenant. The Church corporately is now the special dwelling place of God in a way more profound than the tabernacle and temple in the Old Testament.

 

St. Paul wrote to the squabbling Christians in Corinth, sternly warning them that dividing the Church was a profane act, one that attempted to destroy the sacred New Covenant temple of God. “Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you? If any one destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him. For God’s temple is holy, and that temple you [plural] are” (1 Cor 3:16-17).

 

St. Paul also said in 2 Corinthians: “For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, ‘I will live in them and move among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people’” (6:16). All Christians should forever be astounded that the Church is the special dwelling place of God.

 

The final aspect of the indwelling presence of God refers to the individual believer. Those justified are not infused by just an impersonal something, but by the holy presence of the personal God. This is a staggering reality.

 

When a person is justified, the sinful human heart is cleansed, purified, sanctified, and made righteous, thus making our hearts fit for the holy God to indwell. “Infusion” related to justification is when the glorious presence of God himself enters us as we individually become the temples of the living God. This is why St. Augustine said that the justification of the ungodly was a work greater than the creation of heaven and earth.

 

Every Christian should be conscious of the greatness of justification every waking moment. Yet St. Paul had to ask the Corinthian Christians: “do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you?” (1 Cor 6:19).

 

God’s grace in justification doesn’t leave us interiorly sinners. On the contrary, it touches our lives and transforms us in utterly profound ways. Divine grace transforms us into a new creation, a new realty, a new condition, a new temple—the dwelling place for the glorious presence of the Holy God.

 

What could be greater than the gift of God himself in the soul of man as a result of justification? The degree of glory in the justified could not have been foreseen by the most wise and powerful of the celestial hosts. The work of God’s grace in justification dramatically exceeds every category of human and supernatural thought. (Stephen Wood, Grace and Justification: An Evangelical's Guide to Catholic Beliefs [Greenville, S.C.: Family Life Center Publications, 2017], 44-46)

 

Further Reading

 

Response to a Recent Attempt to Defend Imputed Righteousness

 

Jordan Cooper's "A Defense of Sola Scriptura"

I recently came across the following video from Lutheran Jordan Cooper:

 

A Defense of Sola Scriptura

 

Cooper's argument boils down to the following:

 

There is no need for a passage that teaches sola scriptura for sola scriptura to be true

"Scripture" (exhausted in his view by the 66 books of the Protestant canon) is "God-breathed" (see the use of θεόπνευστος theopneustos in 2 Tim 3:16). As a result, "scripture" is intrinsically above the authority of other sources

Ergo, the burden of proof is on critics of sola scriptura, not defenders thereof.

 

There are many fallacies involved with such, including shifting the burden of proof and confusing quality with (formal) sufficiency. For a thorough refutation of this man-made doctrine, see:

 

Not By Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura

 

I have a thorough discussion of 2 Tim 3:16-17, the main text Cooper uses to prove “the unique authority” of “scripture” and its “sufficiency,” as well as the θεόπνευστος argument, as well as Matt 15/Mark 7 and other "proof-texts" Cooper and other defenders of this doctrine appeal to.

Polycarp on the Salvific Efficacy of Almsgiving

In a prior post, Polycarp vs. Sola Fide, I provided excerpts from Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians refuting Sola Fide. Another text from this short epistle that refutes Sola Fide is chapter 10, "Exhortation to the practice of virtue":

 

Stand fast, therefore, in these things, and follow the example of the Lord, being firm and unchangeable in the faith, loving the brotherhood, and being attached to one another, joined together in the truth, exhibiting the meekness of the Lord in your intercourse with one another, and despising no one. When you can do good, defer it not, because "alms delivers from death." Be all of you subject one to another "having your conduct blameless among the Gentiles," that ye may both receive praise for your good works, and the Lord may not be blasphemed through you. But woe to him by whom the name of the Lord is blasphemed! Teach, therefore, sobriety to all, and manifest it also in your own conduct. (ANF 1:35)

 

The note following the quotation in bold reads “Tobit iv. 10, Tobit xii. 9.” Let us quote from these texts from the book of Tobit:

 

For almsgiving delivers from death and keeps you from going into the Darkness. (Tobit 4:10 NRSV)

 

For almsgiving saves from death and purges away every sin. Those who give alms will enjoy a full life. (Tobit 12:9)

 

There is a variation in the Greek of Tobit 12:9. The NETS (S) renders the verse as:

 

For almsgiving delivers from death, and it will purge away every sin. Those who practice almsgiving and righteousness will have fullness of life.

 

It is clear that Polycarp is teaching that almsgiving is an instrumental means of God purging away our sins, all the more strengthened by the use of Tobit which explicitly teaches this. This flies in the face of various formulations of Sola Fide!

 

For an excellent book on almsgiving and the efficacy thereof in early Christianity, see:

David J. Downs, Alms: Charity, Reward, and Atonement in Early Christianity (Baylor University Press, 2016)  (cf. 1 Peter 4:8 and the Didascalia Apostolorum)

Kevin L. Tolley and Patrick A. Bishop on Joseph F. Smith Passing Brigham Young Jr. in Seniority

In their book on Apostolic Succession in the history of the Restored Gospel, Tolley and Bishop wrote the following about Joseph F. Smith passing Brigham Young Jr. in seniority:

 

April 5, 1900

 

JOSEPH F. SMITH PASSES BRIGHAM YOUNG JR. IN SENIORITY

 

It was not until April 5, 1900, that the question of the date of ordination or the date of entry into the Quorum was resolved. This issue was brought up in a meeting of the First Presidency and the Twelve. It was decided that the date of entry into the Quorum of the Twelve rather than the date of ordination to the office of the Apostle determined seniority.

 

The minutes of the meeting reveal some of the logic and inspiration behind the decision: “Bro. John Henry Smith said that he regarded this as a very important question from the fact that he understood there had been quite a number of men obtained apostles who had never been voted upon as such by the church. His kinsman, for instance, Joseph Smith, who stood at the head of the Re-organized Church, claims he was ordained an apostle by his father . . . . On this phase of the proposition, the question of man was simply this: Has a father—himself being an apostle—a right to ordain his son to the apostleship, and that son to preside without the action of the church, his ordination antedating that of the man chosen and acted upon by the church? The speaker said, to his mind there was but one view to be taken to safeguard the church and this council and to the maintenance of their dignity in the world, such ordinations were dependent upon joint action, first, on the presentation by the First Presidency to the Council of the Apostles for their acceptance, and then to the people for their approval, and then he must be ordained in the proper way . . . His view therefore was that the safety of the organization of the church must be based on the action of the people, the action of the Presidency and Apostles, and the final action of ordination after having been passed upon legitimate lines” (Minutes of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, April 5, 1900, quoted in Steven H. Heath, “Notes on Apostolic Succession,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, 20, no. 2 [Summer 1987]:49-50).

 

The Lord revealed in 1831 the pattern for officers that publicly administer in the Church: “Again I say unto you, that it shall not be given to anyone to go forth to preach my gospel, or to build up my church, except he be ordained by someone who has authority, and it is known to the church that he has authority and has been regularly ordained by the heads of the church” (D&C 42:11). In other words, Brigham Young Jr.’s and Joseph F. Smith’s private ordinations were not made “known to the Church that they had authority,” and Brigham Young Jr. was only ordained by the head and not “ordained by the heads of the church” (Minutes of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, April 5, 1900, quoted in Steven H. Heath, “Notes on Apostolic Succession,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, 20, no. 2 [Summer 1987]:49-50).

 

If the date of ordination to the apostleship was the determining factor in seniority in the Twelve, when Brigham Young Jr. and Joseph F. Smith were placed in the Twelve, Young would have become President of the Twelve before Smith. If this had not been the case, Young would have been President of the church for three years prior to Smith. (Kevin L. Tolley and Patrick A. Bishop, Apostolic Succession in the Restoration [Springville, Utah: CFI, 2020], 115-16, emphasis in bold added)

 

 

D. Kelly Ogden and Andrew C. Skinner vs. Naïve, Sugary views (and frankly views) on Judas and his betrayal of Jesus

Mirroring early LDS views that Judas' betrayal of Jesus was a grievous sin (see Early Latter-day Saints vs. the view Judas Did Nothing Wrong or Sinful), contra the (blasphemous) attempts by some to downplay or even excuse Judas,  D. Kelly Ogden and Andrew C. Skinner wrote the following in their commentary on the Gospels:

 

Matthew 26:14-16; Mark 14:10-11; Luke 22:1-6 In one of the most chilling passages in scripture, Luke notes that Satan entered into Judas, possibly meaning that Satan, who has a spirit body, had entered into the physical body of Judas. Were this the only reference to such a matter, we might be tempted to ascribe it to symbolism or rhetorical device (Satan entering Judas in the same way he influences all of us). But John, as a second witness, also refers to this situation as a literal occurrence (see John 13:27).

 

Could Satan have literally entered into Judas’s mortal body? Elder McConkie wrote: “Perhaps for Satan is a spirit man, a being who was born the offspring of God in preexistence, and who was cast out of rebellion. He and his followers have power in some cases to enter the [physical] bodies of men” (Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, 1:701-2). Judas had so totally submitted himself to the will of his new master, Satan, that he was completely controlled by the archenemy of all righteousness . . . Judas thus sold Jesus to the leaders of the Jews and himself to the devil. And he watched for the right moment when he might “conveniently betray him” (Mark 14:11). He sought opportunity to betray him “in the absence of the multitude” (Luke 22:6) . . . [on John 13:18-22] What was Judas’s motive for perpetrating such an unspeakable injustice against such a pure soul? The Prophet Joseph Smith offered these poignant observations:

 

“From apostates the faithful have received the severest persecutions. Judas was rebuked and immediately betrayed his Lord into the hands of His enemies, because Satan entered into him. There is a superior intelligence bestowed upon such as obey the Gospel with full purpose of heart, which, if sinned against, the apostate is left naked and destitute of the Spirit of God, and he is, in truth, nigh unto cursing. . . . When once that light which was in them is taken from them, they become as much darkened as they were previously enlightened, and then . . . Judas like, seek the destruction of those who were their greatest benefactors. What nearer friend on earth, or in heaven, had Judas than the Savior? And his first object was to destroy Him. Who, among all the Saints in these last days can consider himself as good as our Lord? Who is as perfect? Who is as pure? Who is as holy as He was? Are they to be found? He never transgressed or broke a commandment or law of heaven—no deceit was in His mouth, neither was guile found in His heart. And yet one that ate with Him, who had often drunk of the same cup, was the first to lift up his heel against Him” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 67) . . . Joseph Smith translation Mark 14:30-31 explains a motive for Judas’s betraying Jesus:

 

“And he said unto Judas Iscariot, What thou doest, do quickly; but beware of innocent blood.

“Nevertheless, Judas Iscariot, even one of the twelve, went unto the chief priests to betray Jesus unto them; for he turned away from him, and was offended because of his words” . . . C. Wilfred Griggs cautioned: “The reference in John 17:12 to the fulfillment of scripture in Judas’s betrayal (Psalm 41:9, quoted in John 13:18) shows that even the act was within the divine plan of the Father. One should not, however, assume that Judas acted without volition. God’s knowledge was not a causative agent depriving Judas of the responsibility to choose freely, act accordingly, and suffer the consequences of his actions” (in Holzapfel and Wayment, From the Last Supper through the Resurrection, 136). (D. Kelly Ogden and Andrew C. Skinner, Verse by Verse Volume 1: The Four Gospels [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2006], 545, 546, 551-52, 553-54, 584)

 

 

Bryan L. Baggaley on Ether 2:20 and the timing of the Construction of the Holes in the Jaredite Barges

 

And the Lord said unto the brother of Jared: Behold, thou shalt make a hole in the top, and also in the bottom; and when thou shalt suffer for air thou shalt unstop the hole and receive air. And if it be so that the water come in upon thee, behold, ye shall stop the hole, that ye may not perish in the flood. (Ether 2:20)

 

Bryan Linton Baggaley, a licensed contractor and licensed professional engineer, offered the following solution to a question many readers of this verse often have:

 

It is commonly asked why the Lord waited until the barges were constructed before directing the Jaredites to cut a hole in the top and a hole in the bottom. Why not install the hole during construction? The Lord wanted to test and build the Jaredites’ faith. However, there may be engineering answers as well. The hull of the barges were likely constructed using timbers laminated and sealed together. Allowing the timbers to bind and seal together creating a more uniform material prior to cutting a round hole would provide for optimal stress distribution around the hole. This assumes the barges were made of wood—which the record does not specify except to say they were the “length of a tree” (Ether 2:17). (Bryan L. Baggaley, Building Faith Like the Brother of Jared [Springville, Utah: CFI, 2020], 77 n. 1)

 

Whenever I discuss the barges of the Jaredites, I always try to share this video on youtube, too:

Brother of Jared, Barges, Ether, Book of Mormon, LDS

 

Craig Koester on απαραβατος in Hebrews 7:24

 

7:24. but he holds the priesthood inviolate. The word aparabaton (“inviolate”) could be used in a prescriptive sense: a judge’s decision was “to remain valid and inviolate” (P. Ryl. #65.18), and people were to pursue what was best, making this an inviolable law (Epictetus, Ench. 51.2; Disc. 2.15.1). The term was used descriptively for what did not deviate from the norm (Philo, Eternity 112; Plutarch, Mor. 410E), like Jews who constantly adhered to the Mosaic Law (Josephus, Ant. 18:266; Ag. Ap. 2.293). Here the term indicates that Jesus holds his priesthood in a manner unbroken by death (NASB; NIV; NSV; REB; NJB; NAB²). The alternative is that aparabaton means “untransferable,” since Jesus has no successor in priestly office (TEV; Chrysostom; Ps.—Oecumenius; Theodoret; Erasmus, Paraphrase; Moffatt; Spicq; P.E. Hughes). The problem is that this meaning is not attested in sources contemporary with Hebrews. See J. Schneider, TDNT 5.742-43; TLNT 1.143-44. (Craig R. Koester, Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 36; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001], 365, emphasis in bold added)

 

 

Further Reading

 

Robert S. Boylan, After the Order of the Son of God: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Latter-day Saint Theology of the Priesthood (PDF available for free online)

 

Jaxon Washburn, Is Christ’s Priesthood Non-Transferable? Examining “Aparabatos” in Hebrews 7:24

Craig Koester on Revelation 5:8 and 8:3

 

And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of the saints. (Rev 5:8)

 

And another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer, and there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne. (Rev 8:3)

 

Commenting on Rev 5:8, Craig Koester wrote:

 

The way the heavenly beings bringing the saints’ prayers before God had precedent in Jewish writings (Tob 12:12), but the more common idea was that angels interceded (1 En. 9:3; 40:6; 47:2; 104:1; T. Dan 6:2) or offered sacrifices (T. Levi 3:5) on behalf of the righteous. (Craig R. Koester, Revelation: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 38A; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2014], 379)

 

On Rev 8:3, we read:

 

Jewish sources sometimes told of angels interceding on behalf of the righteous (1 En. 9:3; T. Levi 3:5), but in Revelation the angel brings the saints’ own prayers before God (Tob 12:12; Rev 5:8) (Ibid., 432-33)

 

Here are the extra-canonical works Koester references:

 

So now when you and Sarah prayed, it was I [the archangel Raphael] who brought and read the record of your prayer before the glory of the Lord, and likewise whenever you would bury the dead. (Tobit 12:12 NRSV)

 

And now, [O] holy ones of heaven, the souls of people are putting their case before you pleading, 'Bring our judgment before the Most High.'" (1 Enoch 9:3)

 

And the third voice I heard interceding and praying on behalf of those who dwell upon the earth and supplicating in the name of the Lord of the Spirits. (1 Enoch 40:6)

 

There shall be days when all the holy ones who dwell in the heavens above shall dwell (together). And with one voice, they shall supplicate and pray--glorifying praising, and blessing the name of the Lord of the Spirits--on behalf of the blood of the righteous ones which has been shed. Their prayers shall not stop from exhaustion before the Lord of the Spirits--neither will they relax forever--(until) judgment is executed for them. (1 Enoch 47:2)

 

"I swear unto you that in heaven the angels will remember you for good before the glory of the Great One; and your names shall be written before the glory of the Great One. (1 Enoch 104:1)

 

Draw near to God and to the angel who intercedes for you, because he is the mediator between God and men for the peace of Israel. He shall stand in opposition to the kingdom of the enemy. (Testament of Dan 6:2)

 

There with him are the archangels, who serve and offer propitiatory sacrifices to the Lord in behalf of all the sins of ignorance of the righteous ones. (Testament of Levi 3:5)

 

 

Is Revelation 14:4 a valid "proof-text" for Priestly Celibacy?

In Rev 14:4, we have the following description of the 144,000:

 

These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.

 

Some have used this as a valid “proof-text” for priestly celibacy (e.g., Mario Romero, Unabridged Christianity [Queenship, 1998]). However, a good argument can be used that παρθενος is being used metaphorically. As Craig Koester noted in his Anchor Bible commentary on Revelation:

 

14:4. They were not defiled with women. Defilement (molynein) can occur through contact with something unclean or through sinful actions such as immorality, adultery, theft, idolatry, and murder (Isa 59:3; 65:4; cf. Rev 3:4). Defilement makes a person unfit to enter a holy place or the company of holy people. Nothing unclean is brought into New Jerusalem (21:27). Revelation does not assume that women are inherently unclean, since images of a woman giving birth and a woman at her wedding banquet are used in positive ways for the people of God, and New Jerusalem is pictured as a bride (Rev 12:1-6; 19:7; 21:2, 9-10). Rather, Revelation uses marital imagery in a positive way and links defilement to behaviors that violate the marriage relationship (c. Ep. Arist. 152; 3 Bar. 8:5). On one level the writer lists impurity along with sexual immorality (Rev 21:8, 27; 22:15). On another level he transfers connotations from illicit sexual relations to unfaithfulness toward God when using adultery, immorality, and prostitution metaphorically, as is the case with defilement here (2:14, 20-22; 17:4; 18:3; cf. Jer 3:1-10; Ezek 23:2-21; Hos 1-2).

 

Some interpreters assume that Rev 14:4 depicts those who have not defiled themselves with women as male virgins, since the term Parthenos, or maiden, appears in the next line. With that assumption, there are several approaches to interpreting the imagery. First, some discern a military aspect in the image, since soldiers on duty were to abstain from sexual relations (Deut 23:9-10; 1 Sam 21:5). From this perspective the 144,000 are like troops in a holy war, and counting 12,000 from each of the twelve tribes is like taking a census of warriors (Rev 7:4-8; Num 1:2-3). The group gathers at Mount Zion, where Israel’s king is to defeat his foes (Ps 2:6-9). There could also be a sacred dimension, since the redeemed are a priestly community, and defilement would prevent them from carrying out their priestly duties (Rev 5:10). Such purity was expected in the Dead Sea community, which saw itself as a priestly fellowship anticipating eschatological battle (1QM VIII, 3-6; Bauckham, Climax, 230-32). Although this approach is suggestive, it should not be passed, since military and priestly imagery is at best implicit in Rev 14:1-5, and purity regulations applied more broadly (Lev 15:18).

 

A second approach is that the 144,000 are contrasted with the angelic Watchers, who in primeval times defiled themselves with women and fell under divine judgment (Gen 6:2; 1 En. 15:2-7; Olson, “Those”). But nothing in the context suggests that the faithful are being contrasted with heavenly beings. The threat of defilement from women comes most directly from the woman Jezebel and the “woman” Babylon, whose practices are compared to immorality and adultery (Rev 2:20-23; 17:1-6).

 

A third approach, which draws on gender and postcolonial studies, proposes that the imagery counters imperial ideals of masculinity. Depicting the faithful as those who have not defiled themselves with women is considered misogynistic yet identifying them as virgins gives the males a feminine quality, since virginity was regularly ascribed to women, not men. The dominant Roman discourse emphasized that “real” men married, fathered children, and were the heads of their households; they were sexually dominant. Although Revelation is seen as androcentric, picturing Jesus’ followers as male virgins fits the book’s anti-imperialism by challenging models of masculinity associated with the empire (L. Huber, “Sexually”; Stenstrŏm, “Is Salvation;”; Stenstrŏm, “Masculine”) . . . Maidens, or virgins, is a collective image for ion and Israel, as well as for Christians who are pure in their devotion to Christ, just as young women are to be singularly committed to their betrothed (2 Kgs 19:21; Lam 2:13; Amos 5:2; 2 Cor 11:2). Since virginity was expected of young women approaching marriage. Revelation uses it as a metaphor for Christians who refrain from idolatry and other unfaithful practices, for they are well-suited to be the bride of the Lamb (Deut 22:13-21; Sir 7:24; Rev 19:708). Some interpreters think that John commends virginity as an ascetic ideal showing total commitment, since at least some in the Dead Sa community and the early church practiced celibacy (Matt 19:12; 1 Cor 7:8, 38; cf. Cyprian, FC 36:34-35; Methodius, ACW 27:47-38; Fulgentius, FC 95:316-17; Müller; Roloff; Yarbro Collins, Crisis, 129-31; TLNT 3:52). Most, however, take virginity as a metaphor for fidelity to God and Christ, since John uses antithetical terms such as immorality, adultery, and prostitution as metaphors for religious unfaithfulness (Caesarius, PL 35:2437). (Craig R. Koester, Revelation: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 38A; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2014], 609-10, 611, emphasis in bold added)

 

 

Craig Koester on the Objective and Subjective Senses of ὑπόστασις ("assurance"/"substance") in Hebrews 11:1

In his commentary on Hebrews, Craig Koester offers the following translation of Heb 11:1:

 

Now, faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the proof of things not seen.

 

In his commentary, Koester offers the following discussion of ὑπόστασις (“assurance”; KJV: “substance”):

 

(a) Objective sense: Assurance and What Is Hoped For. Hypostasis often referred to property, which was the material basis that undergirded daily life, and it could be used for the title deed that assured future possession of something (MM, 659-60; TLNT 3.423). In an objective sense “assurance” comes to people from a source beyond themselves. Hebrews 11:1 could encourage dispossessed listeners (10:32-34) to trust that faith was the “guarantee” (NJB) that they would receive an eternal inheritance (cf. Luther, LuthW 29.230). Although the guarantee is finally God’s faithfulness rather than human faith (10:23; 11:11). God gives that is promised to people of faith (6:12; 11:6, 7; cf. Roe, Wolke, 104-5).

 

Others who favor the objective sense stress that hypostasis is the “reality” behind appearances (Ps.-Aristotle, On the Cosmos 4 [395a]; Philo, Dreams 1.188; Eternity 88, 92) or the solid footing on which one stands (Ps 69:2 [68:3 LXX]; cf. Pss. Sol. 15:3). The Objective sense is also suggested by the parallel between hypostasis (“assurance”) and elenchos, which was the “proof” of something’s existence or truth (Heb 11:1b; Attridge; Hamm, “Faith,” 278-79; Hegermann; H.W. Hollander, EDNT 3.407; Lane; Mengelle, “La estructura”; Thompson, Beginnings, 70-71). Some suggest that the object of one’s hope finds “realization” in faith (NAB²; cf. Chrysostom), yet this is awkward since the object of faith remained unrealized for people like Abraham (11:13, 39). More plausible is that Heb 11:1 uses metonymy, which defines something by what produced it (Rhet ad her. 4.32 §43; Attridge). Thus “faith is the assurance” of what is hoped for because what is hoped for produce assurance.

 

(b) Subjective sense: Assurance and Faith. Luther and Tyndale took hypostasis to mean “sure confidence,” since the LXX used it for “hope” (Ruth 1:19; Ezek 19:5; Dōrrie, “Υποστασις,” 89-91). There is little evidence that hypostasis referred to a state of mind (“being sure,” NIV), but it could indicate steadfastness. Soldiers showed “the immovability of heir steadfastness [hypostasis]” in the face of death (Josephus, An. 18.24). Such “steadfastness” (hypostasis) is the “resolute endurance that comes from hope of support” (Polybius, Histories 4.50.10; c. 6.55.2; Ps 39:7 [38:8 LXX]). Hebrews has connected “endurance” with “faith” (10:36, 38) and now identifies faith (pistis) with the steadfast assurance (hypostasis) that is the opposite of "shrinking back” (hypostolē, 10:39) and “abandoning” (apostasies, 3:12). Israel’s ancestors were “attested” (11:2) because of their steadfast reliance on what cannot be seen (Rose, Wolke, 99-117; H.-F. Weiss, Grässer; Bénétrau). (Craig R. Koester, Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 36; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001], 472-73)

 

It is interesting to note that, as with Koester and many others, Joseph Smith used “assurance” in JST Heb 11:1.

Craig Koester on the meaning of Hebrews 11:3 and how it is not a "proof-text" for creation ex nihilo

 

By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible. (Heb 11:3 NASB)

 

Heb 11:3 is a common proof-text for creation ex nihilo. In his Anchor Bible commentary on Hebrews, Craig Koester is quick to note that:

 

Some argue that the visible “has come into being” where nothing existed before. The preposition ek would mean that God created the visible world “out of nothingness” . . . It is not clear, however, that invisibility means nonexistence. (Craig R. Koester, Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 36; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001], 474, emphasis in bold added)

 

Instead, Koester argues that “what cannot be seen” refers to the power of God’s word:

 

The elements in 11:3 are presented in a chiastic pattern in which “what cannot be seen” corresponds to “the word of God” (Ellingworth).

 

(1) was fashioned	(1’) came into being
(2) the universe	(2’) that which can be seen
(3) by the word of God	(3’) by what cannot be seen

 

Although “word” is singular and “what cannot be seen” is plural, the neuter plural could convey a singular idea (Smyth, Grammar §1003). The plural generalizes what was said about the word into a principle capable of broader application (Zerwick, Biblical Greek §7). Similar generalizing occurs in 11:5, where the author moves from Enoch to “the one who approaches God" t” “those who seek him.” The dative case of “word” corresponds to the ek that modifies “what cannot be seen,” indicating cause: “by” (BAGD, 235 [3e]). Thus the creative power of God’s word is an invisible force that produces visible results (P.E. Hughes, Commentary, 452; Rose, Wolke, 156-59). (Ibid., 474)

 

For articles discussion creation ex materia vs. ex nihilo, see:

Blake T. Ostler, Out of Nothing: A History of Creation ex Nihilo in Early Christian Thought

James Patrick Holding refuted on Creation Ex Nihilo

Ex Materia or Ex Nihilo? Creation in Genesis 1:1-2 

Daniel O. McClellan, James Patrick Holding refuted on Creation Ex Nihilo

Jaxon Washburn, Ex Materia or Ex Nihilo? Creation in Genesis 1:1-2

Craig Koester on the meaning of “Heavenly Things” in Hebrews 9:23

 

It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. (Heb 9:23)

 

Arguing that the “heavenly things” in Heb 9:23 is heaven itself, Craig Koester noted:

 

The Tabernacle was holy, yet it needed purification. Although people were not understood to sin within the Tabernacle, the sanctuary was threatened by defilement from people’s sins. In the same way, one need not envision heavenly beings committing sins to think that purification of heaven would be appropriate. Since sin affects all creation, Christ’s work extends to all creation . . . Some refer to Satan being expelled from heaven (Luke 10:18; John 12:31; Rev 12:7-9) and to evil beings inhabiting the air (Eph 6:12; Col 1:20), so that even “the heavens are not clean in his sight” (Job 15:15; 1 Clem. 39:5; Ign. Smyrn. 6:1 . . .). This is not a primary though in Hebrews, however . . . The peculiar idea that the heavenly sanctuary might need cleansing . . . reflects a view of revelation. The author understands fundamental reality to be heavenly rather than earthly. If the earthly sanctuary is a representation of the heavenly one (8:2, 5), then laws pertaining to the earthly tent presumably disclose something about the heavenly tent that it represents. One might conclude that the earthy sanctuary was cleansed because its heavenly counterpart was also to be cleansed. Christ did not purify the heavenly sanctuary because he was bound to follow the Levitical pattern; rather, the reverse is true. Levitical practice foreshadows Christ’s cleansing of the heavenly tent at the turn of the ages (10:1). (Craig R. Koester, Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 36; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001], 421, 427)

 

 On the use of the plural "sacrifices" in Heb 9:23, see:

Does Hebrews 9:23 support the Mass as a Propitiatory Sacrifice? (cf. Joseph Pohle on the question of whether Christ Offers Sacrifices in Heaven and J. Ramsey Michaels on the use of "sacrifices" in Hebrews 9:23)

1967 Gospel Doctrine Manual vs. the Number of the Sons of Perdition Being Very Few

 

How many become sons of perdition? Even though the number who can commit the unpardonable sin on earth is restricted . . . it is an erroneous notion that men who become sons of perdition will be so few that they can be counted on the fingers of one hand. After explaining what is involved in committing the unpardonable sin and something about the fate of those who do so, the Prophet Joseph Smith concluded: “This is the case with many apostates of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” (History of the Church 6:314). This number is still relatively small when compared with the billions who have inhabited the earth. Furthermore, not all who leave the Church could possibly become sons of perdition, but only those with the required knowledge through the Spirit. (Messages for Exaltation: Eternal Insights from the Book of Mormon For the Sunday Schools of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [Salt Lake City: Deseret Sunday School Union, 1967], 354, emphasis in bold added)

 

 

1967 Book of Mormon Gospel Doctrine Manual on Jesus' being Truly Tempted and the Real Possibility of Sinning

In the 1967 manual for Gospel Doctrine classes on the Book of Mormon, we read the following, affirming that Jesus was truly tempted and could indeed sin (though he never did):

 

Christ is sinless. If Christ had ever sinned, he would have been subject to punishment and would have been unable to be our Redeemer since the law would have claim upon him. We must not think that because he was the Son of God, living a perfect life was easy.

 

Christ was born innocent as all children are. He was preserved from the power of Lucifer until he reached the age of accountability; then he was subject to the same temptations that we are. It took effort on his part—determination to be obedient to the Father in every respect. When the time arrived for his baptism, he had no sins to be remitted, but he eagerly entered the baptismal covenant to signify his desire to continue in obedience to the Father. This covenant was kept, and three years later Christ went to Golgotha still sinless.

 

If he had ever slipped, had ever compromised, had ever given in, his mission would have failed. Can we begin to comprehend the pressure that Lucifer must have applied to him, knowing the stakes were so high? Can we imagine the burden Christ carried knowing he was responsible for the salvation of the entire world? (Messages for Exaltation: Eternal Insights from the Book of Mormon For the Sunday Schools of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [Salt Lake City: Deseret Sunday School Union, 1967], 119)

 

Craig Koester on James' Interpretation of Amos 9:11-12 in Acts 15

 

The portion of Amos quoted by James presented the inclusion of Gentiles as a consequences of the rebuilding of "David's tent." This has sometimes been correlated with Jesus' resurrection, since Luke presents Jesus as a descendant of David (Luke 1:32; 2:4) and indicates that Jesus' resurrection fulfilled the promise God made to David in the scriptures (Acts 2:25-36; 13:34-37). Nevertheless, a christological interpretation is highly unlikely, since Luke omitted both  occurrences of the word "raise" (ανιστημι) from the Greek version of Amos 9:11-12, although the word would have provided a ready connection to Jesus' resurrection.

 

Instead, the rebuilding of David's tent almost certainly refers to the establishment of the Jewish Christian church. Elsewhere in Acts, Luke presents David as a father of Israel (2:29; 4:25) and uses the term "build" (οιχοδεμεω) for the upbuilding of the church (9:31; 20:32). In Stephen's speech σχηνη and σχηνωμα designated the places of Israel's worship, culminating with David's establishment of a tent sanctuary in Jerusalem. Although Solomon built an idolatrous temple, God sent Jesus, the "Righteous One," and the implication was that true worship took place among those who accepted Jesus, as it had formerly taken place at David's tent. James makes this explicit, by identifying the Jewish Christian community as the restored tent of David. Peter insisted that both Jewish and Gentile Christians depended on God's grace; James demonstrated that both represented the fulfillment of the words of the prophets. (Craig Koester, The Dwelling of God: The Tabernacle in the Old Testament, Intertestamental Jewish Literature, and the New Testament [Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 22; Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1989], 86-87)

 

 

Craig Koester on Hebrews 10:19-20 and the Veil of Jesus' Flesh

 

HEB 10:19-20: THE VEIL OF JESUS’ FLESH

 

Similar perspectives appear in 10:19-20, which mention the tabernacle veil and introduces the exhortations that conclude the discussion of Jesus’ high priestly ministry

 

(10:19) Therefore brethren, since we have boldness for a way into the sanctuary (την εισοδον των αγιων) by the blood of Jesus, a new (προσφατον) and living way (οδον), (2) which he made new (ενεχαινισεν) for us through the veil, that is through his flesh . . . (22) let us draw near with a true heart . . .

 

Only in this passage does the author equate the tabernacle veil with Jesus’ flesh. Because the image is unusual and becomes unintelligible when pressed into a full typology, some interpreters have argued that the words “through his flesh” actually refer to the “way” or to the whole of v. 20a, not to the veil. James Moffatt, however, has rightly called the reference to Jesus’ flesh a “daring poetical touch” which should not be taken as a full typology. Moreover, the word order, and the parallel use of genitive case for χαταπετασμα and σαρξ indicates that “through his flesh” does refer to the curtain than to the way, a conclusion which is consistent with the appositional use of τουτ’ εστιν elsewhere in the epistle (2:14; 7:5; 9:11; 13:15; cf. 10:20).

 

By identifying Jesus’ flesh with the veil, the author recalls the spatial interpretation of the tabernacle that appeared in chap. 9. There the author identified the forecourt of the tabernacle with the realm of the flesh, and the holy of holies with the realm of the conscience or heaven (9:9-10, 24). The veil of the tabernacle separated the two regions. At the time of his death, Jesus left the realm of the flesh and entered the heavenly realm, where he offered the sacrifice that purifies the conscience (9:14; 10:22).

 

The emphasis on the newness of the way also recalls the temporal contrasts of Hebrews 9, where the tabernacle’s forecourt was “the present time” and the holy of holies was the new age (9:9, 11, 26). The author stresses that Jesus “made new” (ενεχαινισεν) a “new” (προσφατον) way into the sanctuary, since his high priestly ministry marked the beginning of a new age.

 

In chap. 9, the lower realm and the present age were associated with the Mosaic statues (9:9-10). The verses surrounding 10:19-20 also relegate the Mosaic law to a time that has passed and an inferior realm. The law prescribed various offerings for sin, but Christ abolished them and instituted a new covenant, so that there is no longer any offering for sin (10:8, 16-18). The new covenant, unlike the Mosaic covenant, is inscribed on the heart and mind, which, like the conscience, is associated with a higher realm of being (10:22). By his sacrificial death, Jesus moved beyond the realm of the Mosaic law, making it possible for his followers to do the same. (Craig Koester, The Dwelling of God: The Tabernacle in the Old Testament, Intertestamental Jewish Literature, and the New Testament [Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 22; Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1989], 164-65)